The period following heart failure hospitalization (HFH) is a vulnerable time with high rates of death or recurrent HFH.OBJECTIVE To evaluate clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment response to vericiguat according to prespecified index event subgroups and time from index HFH in the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSAnalysis of an international, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. All VICTORIA patients had recent (<6 months) worsening HF (ejection fraction <45%). Index event subgroups were less than 3 months after HFH (n = 3378), 3 to 6 months after HFH (n = 871), and those requiring outpatient intravenous diuretic therapy only for worsening HF (without HFH) in the previous 3 months (n = 801). Data were analyzed between May 2, 2020, and May 9, 2020.INTERVENTION Vericiguat titrated to 10 mg daily vs placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was time to a composite of HFH or cardiovascular death; secondary outcomes were time to HFH, cardiovascular death, a composite of all-cause mortality or HFH, all-cause death, and total HFH. RESULTS Among 5050 patients in the VICTORIA trial, mean age was 67 years, 24% were women, 64% were White, 22% were Asian, and 5% were Black. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms within each subgroup. Over a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the primary event rates were 40.9, 29.6, and 23.4 events per 100 patient-years in the HFH at less than 3 months, HFH 3 to 6 months, and outpatient worsening subgroups, respectively. Compared with the outpatient worsening subgroup, the multivariable-adjusted relative risk of the primary outcome was higher in HFH less than 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.73), with a time-dependent gradient of risk demonstrating that patients closest to their index HFH had the highest risk. Vericiguat was associated with reduced risk of the primary outcome overall and in all subgroups, without evidence of treatment heterogeneity. Similar results were evident for all-cause death and HFH. Addtionally, a continuous association between time from HFH and vericiguat treatment showed a trend toward greater benefit with longer duration since HFH. Safety events (symptomatic hypotension and syncope) were infrequent in all subgroups, with no difference between treatment arms.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with worsening chronic HF, those in closest proximity to their index HFH had the highest risk of cardiovascular death or HFH, irrespective of age or clinical risk factors. The benefit of vericiguat did not differ significantly across the spectrum of risk in worsening HF.

Background:Previously, the results of phase II AURORA clinical study of levilimab in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported1. Here we report topline 24-weeks results of preliminary primary efficacy and safety analysis of phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical study (SOLAR).Objectives:To confirm that levilimab in combination with methotrexate is superior to placebo in combination with methotrexate in achieving ACR20 at week 12 and low disease activity (LDA) at week 24 in subjects with methotrexate (MTX) resistant active RA.Methods:The study is ongoing at 21 clinical sites in Russia and Belarus. All randomized subjects have completed 24 weeks of study between November 2019 and January 2021.154 adults, aged ≥18 years with the diagnosis of RA (ACR 2010) for at least 24 weeks, and confirmed disease activity at screening despite treatment with MTX for the last 12 weeks (in a stable dose 15-25 mg/week, for at least 4 weeks) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either levilimab (162 mg, SC, QW) + MTX (n=102) or placebo + MTX (n=52). The randomization and treatment allocation were carried out by a central computer-based system. Subjects, caregivers, and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment.The hypothesis of superiority of levilimab over placebo was tested for two co-primary efficacy outcomes: proportion of subjects who achieved ACR20 at week 12 and proportion of subjects who achieved LDA of RA (DAS28-CRP <3.2) at Week 24 of the study.For ethical reasons, subjects who haven’t achieved minimal clinical response at week 12 (≥20% reduction in the number of tender/swollen joints; 66/68) received rescue therapy at the discretion of the Investigator, and all subsequent efficacy assessments for those were considered missing.For the primary efficacy analysis, subjects with missing data due to study discontinuation or rescue therapy prescription were considered non-responders (non-responder imputation, NRI). Otherwise, the analysis was performed on observed cases.Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs).Results:The primary analysis was based on 149 randomized subjects (n=99 and n = 50) for ACR20 and 154 randomized subjects (n= 102 and n = 52) for LDA.70/99 (71%) of subjects who received levilimab and 20/50 (40%) who received placebo achieved ACR20 response at week 12. The difference in proportion was 30% with a lower bound of 97.5% CI 12.8%; p=0.0003 (Pearson’s chi-squared test).53/102 (52%) of subjects received levilimab and 3/52 (6%) received placebo achieved LDA at week 24. The difference in proportion was 46% with a lower bound of 97.5% CI 31.2 %; p<0.0001 (Pearson’s chi-squared test).The safety population included all subjects, who received investigational product (n=154).The most common adverse events (reported in ≥5% of subjects) in levilimab and placebo arms, respectively were: blood cholesterol increase (19% vs. 10%), ALT increase (11% vs. 8%), lymphocyte count decrease (9% vs. 8%), blood bilirubin increase (11% vs. 0%), blood triglycerides increase (9% vs. 2%), AST increase (7% vs. 4%), IGRA with M.tuberculosis antigen positive (5% vs. 6%), ANC decrease (8% vs. 0%). No deaths were occurred.Conclusion:The study confirmed superior efficacy of levilimab + MTX over placebo + MTX in subjects with MTX resistant active RA. No new safety signals were detected.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04397562References:[1]Mazurov V, Zotkin E, Ilivanova E, et al. FRI0114 EFFICACY OF LEVILIMAB, NOVEL MONOCLONAL ANTI-IL-6 RECEPTOR ANTIBODY, IN COMBINATION WITH METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: 1-YEAR RESULTS OF PHASE 2 AURORA STUDY. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2020;79:637-638.Acknowledgements:We thank all contributors to the SOLAR clinical trialDisclosure of Interests:V Mazurov: None declared, Maxim Korolev: None declared, Alena Kundzer: None declared, Nikolaj Soroka: None declared, Aleksander Kastanayan: None declared, Tatyana Povarova: None declared, Tatyana Plaksina: None declared, Olga Antipova: None declared, Diana Kretchikova: None declared, Svetlana Smakotina: None declared, Oksana Tciupa: None declared, Tatiana Raskina: None declared, Tatyana Kropotina: None declared, Olga Nesmeyanova: None declared, Tatiana Popova: None declared, Ekaterina Dokukina Employee of: JSC BIOCAD, Aleksandra Plotnikova Employee of: JSC BIOCAD, Anton Lutskii Employee of: JSC BIOCAD, Arina Zinkina-Orihan Employee of: JSC BIOCAD

Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A.Objective. The main objective of BCD-085-5/ASTERA study was to prove superiority of NTK over placebo and assess its’ safety in patients with active AS.Subjects and methods. BCD-085-5/ASTERA was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, which included 228 adult patients with active AS, persisting despite active treatment with NSAIDs. AS was considered active at BASDAI score ≥ 4.0. Patients were blindly randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of NTK (120 mg) or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2 and then every other week up to week 14. Starting from week 16 all patients from NTK group and patients from placebo group not achieving ASAS20 were switched to open label 120 mg NTK s/c once every two weeks. The total duration of treatment with NTK was 3 years.Results. Higher proportion of patients had ASAS40 response at week 16 (primary endpoint) in NTK arm compared to placebo (40,4 vs 2,6%, р <0,0001, 95% CI [27,4%; 48,1%]). Spinal pain subsided and laboratory inflammation markers decreased within one week after the first NTK injection. NTK safety profile was comparable to that of placebo. The most common for NTK adverse events were neutropenia (7,0%) and ALT increase (6,1%).Conclusion. Subcutaneous NTK at 120 mg dose demonstrated superior efficacy vs placebo, with fast onset of response and favorable safety profile when used in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

BackgroundEquivalent efficacy of BCD-055 and infliximab (INF) innovator has been previously established (the primary endpoint: ACR20 at Wk14)1.ObjectivesThe impact of BCD-055 and INF innovator on RA activity has been analysed within 14 week study period. DAS28-CRP(,4 CDAI and SDAI were evaluated. Additionally, safety data has been collected.MethodsThe study was conducted as international multicenter randomised double-blind placebo controlled study. The study enrolled 426 adults with active RA. Patients were randomised into 2 study arms in 2:1 ratio to receive BCD-055 or INF innovator in dose of 3 mg/kg. In the analysed period of the study, patients received the iv infusions on Wk0, Wk2, Wk6, Wk14.ResultsEfficacy: BCD-055 and INF innovator showed similar impact on RA activity: in both groups significant decline of DAS28-CRP(4 was observed (figure 1). This result corresponds to positive CDAI and SDAI dynamics (table 2). Medians of CDAI/SDAI on screening indicated high RA activity, while on Wk 14 – moderate activity. Analyses of inflammatory markers (ESR and C-reactive protein) revealed pronounced decline in ESR and CRP levels by Wk 2. No further elevation has been observed.Safety: No differences in safety profiles of BCD-055 and INF innovator has been shown. One of the most frequent AEs were arterial hypertension, anaemia, neutropenia and increase of transaminases. Number of patients with binding and neutralising antibodies also did not differ between groups. Babs were detected in 6.83% patients in BCD-055 arm and in 7.81% in INF innovator arm (p=0.888), Nab were observed in 1.61% and 0.78% patients in same arms (p=0.666).Abstract THU0193 – Table 1SDAI, CDAI dynamics.ScreeningWk14p-value SDAIBCD-055 (n=280)42.46 [35.15–51.11]16.22 [8.45–25.03]<0.00000INF innovator (n=138)41.22 [34.21–47.52]16.15 [9.06–27.11]<0.00000CDAIBCD-055 (n=280)39.15 [31.50–46.00]15.40 [8.00–24.00]<0.00000INF innovator (n=138)36.85 [31.90–42.00]15.55 [8.30–25.50]<0.00000Abstract THU0193 – Table 2Summarised safety dataPercentage of patients withArmp-value BCD-055(n=280)INF innovator(n=138) Any AE/SAE53.57% (150)44.93% (62)0.119Therapy-related AEs26.43% (74)24.64%340.784Any SAE2.14%61.45%21.00Grade 3–4 AEs10.00%285.80%80.966Therapy-related grade 3–4 AEs5.71%164.35%60.722Therapy-discontinuation due to AE2.50%72.90%40.757ConclusionsTreatment with BCD-055 and INF innovator leads to significant decline in RA activity and inflammatory markers by Wk14, which corresponds with previous results of ACR20 assessment1. Both drugs are well tolerated with no differences in safety profiles. The frequency of ADA formation is also comparable.Reference[1] Denisov L, Gordeev I, Mazurov V, et al. FRI0208 Comparison of efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of infliximab biosimilar (BCD-055) and innovator infliximab Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:560–561.Disclosure of InterestA. Lila: None declared, L. Denisov: None declared, T. Plaksina: None declared, S. Smakotina: None declared, E. Kunder: None declared, N. Soroka: None declared, A. Kastanayan: None declared, O. Nesmeyanova...

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of ketoprofen plasters and diclofenac plasters after 3 weeks of administration in patients with osteoarthritisrelated knee pain.Methods: This multicenter, randomized, activecontrolled, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority phase III study randomized 236 adults with osteoarthritis-related knee pain for 3 weeks with ketoprofen plaster 30 mg twice daily (n = 118) or diclofenac plaster 15 mg once daily (n = 118). The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline to week 3 in the mean knee pain intensity score during walking, as measured by a 100-mm visual analog scale with a predefined noninferiority margin of 10.0 mm. Secondary end points included changes in knee pain intensity score during walking (weeks 1 and 2) and at rest (weeks 1, 2, and 3), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale assessments, and frequency of rescue medication use after 2 and 3 weeks of treatment.Findings: A total of 223 patients (115 in the ketoprofen group and 108 in the diclofenac group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. After 3 weeks of treatment, the least squares mean change from baseline in knee pain intensity scores during walking was −35.9 (95% CI, −39.7 to −32.2) in the ketoprofen